Homeschooling debate

[muffler dragon]

Anyway, I think my kids listen and pay attention more when a teacher explains something than when I do anyway.

And this may very well an occurrence that rises up after we make the attempt at homeschooling. If that is the case; then I don't think we'll be adverse to making a change.

 

[muffler dragon]

Then there's the answer muffler...homeschool your kid and he'll be the next Tebow!

I've already got my seven-week old son on creatine supplements. We bought some 4 oz wrist and ankle weights for when he's wiggling around.

 

[shetuck]

First of all... interesting point of view... and.. I'm happy to see that no one seems to have ulterior motivations for why their children are homeschooled. As BKB mentions below... I come from an area where there are groups... who under the guise of religious reasons.... homeschool their children simply to have them available for forced labor.

We have some here in my neck of the woods (eastern PA) too. They drive around in buggies...

I find the social vs. academic environment arguments interesting... but.. in my mind they aren't mutually exclusive at all.

In fact, and maybe this is merely a personal experience... but... I know the quality of my public school education was top rate. Of course, that's because my public school education was supplemented and encouraged by my parents... they went to great lengths to interest me in academic subjects and to think for myself about subject material. I think to a great degree, I was helped by having both of these influnces in my life in that my parents would have focused on interesting me in (more often than not) the same things they were while I was exposed to a whole different "curriculum" at school and my parents could help me with those things as well.

So, I tend to think I would have missed out if I didn't have both a public school experience as well as good parents.

Agreed. Me too.

As to the social aspect of things, I found the asshole home schooled kids flag football story amusing, and not pointing any fingers here, but, I have run across a section of parents that want to homeschool their kids because other kids are mean, and were mean to them, and this kept them from learning or some such bullshit. They don't use this as a primary reason... but... it comes up usually. Its my experience that these kids probalby need to have public school social interaction more than most. As most of us can probably agreee, the apple is notorious for not falling far from the tree, and for that parent that had the bad public school experience, ummm, the fault might not lie "with the other kids" if you get my meaning. Sometimes its a good policy to ask, "Whose the asshole?"

To this point... I don't know if there's a socialization issue or like a job. But, I kind of wonder why everyone here thinks schools are for "learning." Sure, there are bad thigns to be learned from the other kids. Sure the teachers are inconsistent... yes there is time wasted. But, like BKB says, that's life. It might be best to learn the best way to teach your kid, then do it. But, on the other hand, it might be best to teach your kid to be able to adjust to different kind of people and viewpoints.... if these are distractions, they aren't going away once we're "through calculus."

One of the things that caught my attention when my wife and I were considering homeschooling was that homeschooled kids out-perform their peers at every academic stage. There are a number of good studies on this (link).

But the your points in the above quote were key in our decision not to homeschool. It goes to the whole EQ/IQ thing that Daniel Goleman and many others have done some very extensive work.

The claim (with which I agree) is that something like 75% of a person's (or even a group's) success in life is attributable to and correlated with "soft" skills such as the ability to empathize with others, to be flexible and adapt, to negotiate and compromise, to resolve conflict and leverage diversity, to learn (and then coach, mentor and lead), and so on..

These are all things that can't be taught through cognitive exercises or rote learning. They're not things that we can easily measure and test for, either. So what has historically happened in most structured environments (like schools or a place of work), is that soft-skills are de-emphasize and compensations are made by putting more weight on cognitive intelligence, academic achievement, and becoming "book" smart.

I guess, my point is, we can talk about reading techniques and grammar and rote vs phonic learning... and maybe everyone gets this... but... seems to me that learning itself is a skill, not a set of skills. I'll be the first to sing the praises of a braod based liberal-arts-esque type knowledge background. But, I don't really, as a parent (and, I am a rookie, I'll admit) don't really aspire to teach my kid(s) anything. Its going to happen, sure... there are things that I think are neat and important that I will want to share with her. But, the primary goal for me is to provide a support system for her to learn on her own... for her to be able to acheive things, to learn on her own, to know she's loved and to know she'll have a hand to pick her up when she inevitably falls. I have no desire to actually create the environment of her world, Just the tools she needs to operate in it. I don't understand the point of "teaching her to think for herself" and then have mine be the only point of view in her life. These ideas seem at odds to me.

This is also the approach we use with our son. While we have a small handful of over-arching and inviolable rules (maybe three our four), for the most part he is free to interact with his environment in the way he chooses so long as he causes no physical harm to himself or others. He has responded well to this approach. Another child may not. But I think that's your point that each child somehow knows, intuitively, what he/she needs to learn at any given point in time. I believe that's also what Maria Montessori preached on about...

I've heard it quoted that "play is the work of children".

 

[jwinslow]

I try not to stereotype, but in college... most of the homeschool kids I knew personally (probably about two dozen) were outstanding students but typically not well adjusted in social situations, to a very awkward degree much of the time. There were some exceptions to this rule, but there was a definite pattern of trade-offs in personal behavior (grades, chores, etc) and group interaction.

 

[muffler dragon]

One of the things that caught my attention when my wife and I were considering homeschooling was that homeschooled kids out-perform their peers at every academic stage. There are a number of good studies on this (link).


But the your points in the above quote were key in our decision not to homeschool. It goes to the whole EQ/IQ thing that Daniel Goleman and many others have done some very extensive work.

The claim (with which I agree) is that something like 75% of a person's (or even a group's) success in life is attributable to and correlated with "soft" skills such as the ability to empathize with others, to be flexible and adapt, to negotiate and compromise, to resolve conflict and leverage diversity, to learn (and then coach, mentor and lead), and so on..

These are all things that can't be taught through cognitive exercises or rote learning. They're not things that we can easily measure and test for, either. So what has historically happened in most structured environments (like schools or a place of work), is that soft-skills are de-emphasize and compensations are made by putting more weight on cognitive intelligence, academic achievement, and becoming "book" smart.

I would have to concur with this just from looking at my wife's family. All the children were homeschooled, and to be frank, sucked horribly at life skills EXCEPT for my wife. I know that I'm biased, but I'll share the facts. At age 15, she finished school. She had been working since the age of 12 at the local country club. At age 17, she was breakfast manager at a local hotel restaurant. She was also living on her own at this point in time. None of the other kids had her experience. Now, granted, I have provided for her rather well; but I married a person who was my peer intellectually and common sense wise. Thus, once again, we have both sides of the coin, but hopefully, with the positives that don't tend to exist in the "homeschool" arena.

Funny anecdote: when my wife and I moved to Oregon we were at the public library one night. I started conversing with a fellow that was there because his wife was at a meeting. Come to find out that they were part of a homeschooling association. Long story short, they revered my wife like a demi-god, because she was older but "had lived the experience". It pissed my wife off, but I thought it was an interesting experience nonetheless.

This is also the approach we use with our son. While we have a small handful of over-arching and inviolable rules (maybe three our four), for the most part he is free to interact with his environment in the way he chooses so long as he causes no physical harm to himself or others. He has responded well to this approach. Another child may not. But I think that's your point that each child somehow knows, intuitively, what he/she needs to learn at any given point in time. I believe that's also what Maria Montessori preached on about...

I've heard it quoted that "play is the work of children".

Whereas, my experience with the Montessori group is a bunch of snobby pricks who ultimately wanted their children to be intellectually stagnated all in the hopes of becoming an artisan. I guess there's all shapes and kinds throughout the world.

 

[buckeyes_rock]

And this may very well an occurrence that rises up after we make the attempt at homeschooling. If that is the case; then I don't think we'll be adverse to making a change.

I think my advice to you would be, if it works for your kid then great. I couldn't do it, but if your wife is comfortable in the educator role then awesome. Public schools (even the good ones) can't possibly cater to every kids needs no matter how hard they try.

My son was recommended for the gifted program at our school and I so hope he gets in...quite frankly, regular class can be boring for him sometimes. There are so many distractions in a typical classroom and teachers have to slow down so no kid gets left behind quite often.

I know people who were very happy in the Montessori system because of what was stated above...where the child is free to learn the things they are most interested in. Montessori is great for kids who are a little behind or a little ahead so to speak.

Most kids, in my opinion, are fine in public school, especially if they're driven. But like most things, it is what you make it. We supplement a lot at home. We use homework or tests our kids bring home as a spring board to other learning opportunities. And we love to let them explore at home through the internet and books. I've got a kid who loves to do science experiments. Some of the stuff he comes up with is really funny. We've found that just about anything can be turned into a learning opportunity if we do it right (that's without the kids getting sick of us teaching). :)

Anyway, best of luck to you and your wife.

And if your son does turn into a Tim Tebow clone...make sure he signs with Ohio State...oh wait, that's for a different thread...

 

[Deety]

The value of education depends on the quality of teacher in either case. I went to a public school but learned more math in a month preparing for SATs with my father than I did in several years of math classes. Amazing what can happen you have the freedom to ensure someone gets a concept and move on as soon as they do.

I've worked with a number of homeschooling families and found the children to be very well socialized, healthy, focused, and creative. Most of the parents joined with other families to share teaching duties according to their strengths, which seems smart - morning's at Susie's for Math, afternoons at Timmy's for English, Science at Amy's on Wednesdays. Quite a few of the students would head to public school for the last class of the day and sports, which also seemed a good arrangement. I saw many homeschooling parents at teaching conferences, staying up-to-date on teaching methods and materials. One family added a field trip every Friday to bring home the week's lessons - to a museum, outside measuring things for math, whatever reinforced the lesson outside the classroom.

Then you do have the parent's whose agendas, good or bad, take priority. I didn't get to know the polygamist groups in southern Utah well other than arranging activities they attended, but they pretty much kept to themselves and I'm not sure that is great preparation for life. The stage moms were the worst... one family's daughter had fainting fits because she was under so much pressure to excel at so, so many activities... and her mother almost cost her a big opportunity with her interference. I could call another house at any hour and hear three pianos going simultaneously as the kids studied music 10 hours a day (literally) before going on to other topics (and then their mom wanted to send them to a local school instead of Julliard... but she thanked me later for bullying her into letting them go). Of course, these things aren't limited to home schoolers and I have similar stories about other kids - just seems to be a little more prevalent with home schoolers.

While by no means set on it, I'd definitely consider homeschooling in some sort of modified format that ensured lots of interaction with other kids - and other instructors to ensure a wider perspective on topics than I could provide alone. More of a community school without the building. But no doubt it's a full-time teaching position, and we do have many fine people doing that in the public schools, so that works pretty well, too.

 

[Gatorubet]

I try not to stereotype, but in college... most of the homeschool kids I knew personally (probably about two dozen) were outstanding students but typically not well adjusted in social situations, to a very awkward degree much of the time. There were some exceptions to this rule, but there was a definite pattern of trade-offs in personal behavior (grades, chores, etc) and group interaction.

I see the same, with one caveat: The kids from big families are much better at socialization than the kids from (God help us) "only child" home schoolers. They tend to be smart, but dead sure that they are right about everything, and ill equipped to deal with the comments of kids who do not agree that they are the Nazizzle. When they are told "Suck my *ick homo", they have no response, and go run to the RA to protect them from the mean kids, further socially ostracizing them.

Dealing with ignorant assholes is also a life skill, and they do not seem to have it. In many ways, dealing with people who are not on your own plane, educationally, or socially, or religiously, is a skill more important then knowing the answer. Great example is Broadcast News movie where the William Hurt character keeps succeeding because of his personality and the Albert Brooks character is way smarter, but fails because he is a nerd who either pisses people off or fails to impress.

 

[shetuck]

I would have to concur with this just from looking at my wife's family. All the children were homeschooled, and to be frank, sucked horribly at life skills EXCEPT for my wife. I know that I'm biased, but I'll share the facts. At age 15, she finished school. She had been working since the age of 12 at the local country club. At age 17, she was breakfast manager at a local hotel restaurant. She was also living on her own at this point in time. None of the other kids had her experience. Now, granted, I have provided for her rather well; but I married a person who was my peer intellectually and common sense wise. Thus, once again, we have both sides of the coin, but hopefully, with the positives that don't tend to exist in the "homeschool" arena.

Are you saying that what set your wife apart from the rest of the "control group" were the extra-curricular activities: working since age 12 in a job where she's dealing with people; having to manage subordinates in a fast-paced service-oritented environement; having to take care of herself, etc.?

Funny anecdote: when my wife and I moved to Oregon we were at the public library one night. I started conversing with a fellow that was there because his wife was at a meeting. Come to find out that they were part of a homeschooling association. Long story short, they revered my wife like a demi-god, because she was older but "had lived the experience". It pissed my wife off, but I thought it was an interesting experience nonetheless.

Sounds like pledging a fraternity...

Whereas, my experience with the Montessori group is a bunch of snobby pricks who ultimately wanted their children to be intellectually stagnated all in the hopes of becoming an artisan. I guess there's all shapes and kinds throughout the world.

Yeah, I know. I agree. I was talking Maria Montessori specifically (and what she says in her books like "The Absorbent Mind" and some earlier ones). I wasn't referring to her so-called adherents.

 

[Gatorubet]

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

In many ways, dealing with people who are not on your own plane, educationally, or socially, or religiously, is a skill more important then knowing the answer.

You stupid asshole.

 

[shetuck]

You stupid asshole.

Such my *ick homo.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Such my *ick homo.

I'm sorry. I don't recall ordering the "Such my *ick homo."

 

[shetuck]

I'm sorry. I don't recall ordering the "Such my *ick homo."

Go see the RA.

 

[Gatorubet]

You stupid asshole.

SMDFF. I'm not stupid.

I repeat, Such it!